They missed a major source. At $150 Oil you’d start to see coal liquifaction plants being built.
Comment on Week in review by Scott Basinger
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Yep. This guy also shoots down some of the more optimistic recovery estimates. Being too pessimistic has lead many a peak oiler down the Primrose Path.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Pekka Pirilä
Tony,
Some of his earlier papers had serious mathematical errors. His previous paper was better in that respect. It presented quite correct calculations of the radiative heat transfer including results that were very close of proving his conclusions wrong, but he stopped just short of doing the last step that would have resulted in that.
The main problem of his theoretical part is that he makes calculations, whose results are dominated by the lower troposphere, but almost all the radiative forcing comes from the upper troposphere that does not enter properly in his calculation. That error persists here. The calculation that I mention in the previous paragraph looked at the upper troposphere, but he stopped short of calculating the forcing from that.
When he presents only the largely irrelevant part of the theory, he can use the numerical results to “prove” conclusions that are opposite of the truth.
As has been discussed by others, his use of empirical data is similarly based on the trick of picking numbers, where the relevant physics cannot be seen, and drawing unjustified conclusions from that.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by John Carpenter
don’t ask that question!
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Lucifer
Strike while the irony is hot.
↧
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Tonyb
Pekka
thanks for your very clear explanation
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Willis,” Surface upward LW flux = 398 W/m2
Available solar radiation = 162 W/m2 (after atmospheric absorption and albedo reflection)”
Available solar is close to 1300 Wm-2, average solar is ~162 Wm-2. Since clouds are water vapor and are a large portion of both albedo and DWLR they are responses to total available TSI not average.
There are other ways to approximate what “surface” temperatures should be than the standard astrophysics method. If you were designing a solar pond for example you would be interested in the actual TSI available and the rate of heat loss from your pond. Try it, you might like it.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Rud Istvan
Well, I slogged through the new paper. Unnecessarily mathematically dense, which to paraphase Winston Churchill, defends it well from being read. Although he threw in lots of colored charts and purports to drive four new principles from the reanalyzed radiosonde data he somehow cherrypicked (paper figure 7 proof). There are at least three fundamental problems.
1. He purports to validate both empirically and theoretically (more new theory) a fundamental equality “Esubd =Asuba”=…( paper p.42) derived from his breakthrough 2007 paper. Except that paper has been thoroughly mathematically debunked as a fruit salad (SOD said soufle, whatever). See SOD links.
2. He maintains the Earth has a robust set point with albedo ‘Hsuperc’ ~0.3 and cloud cover ‘beta’ ~0.66. Always. More CO2, more clouds, no greenhouse effect. (paper p. 50, “simple[sic] does not exist”]. More CO2, less water vapor, unchanged clear sky optical depth (Judith’s post comment). Both modeled, not observed. Note the sloppiness of the ‘observed’ to ‘theoretical’ correspondence. With ‘observed’ subject to point 1.
3. There is obviously a greenhouse effect, mostly water mediated. Else Earth would be about -18C (grey earth first principle calculation, see SOD or my books). So M is really arguing that the greenhouse effect is saturated at his theoretical equilibrium (paper p. 49). Since grey Earth says doubling CO2 contributes 1.1-1.2C (grey is a concept), M’s saturation assertion amounts to saying there is always an exact offsetting negative feedback in water vaper and clouds (water/ice condensed from vapor). That is highly implausible. M has no mechanisms, no good evidence. Worse than Trenberths deep ocean heat hypothesis, debunked in essay Missing Heat.
All the evidence says there is a positive WV feedback, but on the order of half what constant UTrH would predict. See essay Humidity is still Wet. All the evidence says there is probably a negative cloud feedback, not positive as AR5 asserts. See essay Cloudy Clouds. So climate sensitivity is something like half of what the IPCC asserts (see Lewis amd Curry for one good example). A TCR of 1.3 and an ECS of 1.7 still means there is a CO2 ‘greenhouse’ effect.
So M is in all likelihood just wrong. But his stuff surficially is as ‘good’ as Dr. Mills ‘GUT-CQM’ 1100 page self published theory of hydrinos behind the Blacklight Power scam (covered in The Arts of Truth).
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Max_OK
I’m not a scientist, but I read somewhere that CO2 over 1,500 ppm is of no benefit to plants, and can even make plants sick. It’s bad for humans too. However, there’s no need to worry about overdosing because although atmospheric CO2 is rising, it’s now only about 399 ppm.
I’m not a scientist, but I understand most climate scientists believe the more CO2 people make by burning fossil fuels, the warmer the earth will become.
I know from experience plants don’t like warmer and warmer. If they did, no greenhouse would need cooling. So rising atmospheric CO2 is nothing to laugh about.
So there you have it, CO2 is good thing, but too much CO2 can be a bad thing for plants (and animals). Therefore, I believe it is correct to say too much CO2 is a pollutant, because it can be harmful
Rather than saying “too much CO2 is a pollutant” it’s easier just to say “CO2 can be a pollutant.”
CO2 can be a pollutant.
↧
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Stephen Wilde
In his full PDF Ferenc said:
“research must continue to find and establish the real causes and the true trends in global temperature change that may be present behind the natural fluctuations.”
I support his findings on the basis that convective changes will always adjust the balance between radiation and conduction within the Earth system so as to match energy out to space with energy in from space.
The existence of water simply makes the process much easier. If there were no water the same principle would apply but convective overturning within the atmosphere would have to work much harder to maintain equilibrium.
I referred favourably to the Miskolczi findings here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
and this is the latest version of my hypothesis as to ‘the real causes …. behind the natural fluctuations’ :
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
Furthermore, note that sinking air (50% of the atmophere on average) warms at the dry adiabatic lapse rate as it descends.
It is that warming on descent that dissipates clouds and results in clear skies. Those clear skies are similar to the clear glass roof of a greenhouse in that they let solar radiation reach the surface beneath.
That warming on descent also reduces the rate of temperature decline with height which suppresses convection from the surface so that the surface on the day side then warms more than it otherwise would have done and the surface on the night side cools less quickly than it otherwise would have done.. That is similar to the way that a greenhouse roof supresses convection and allows heat to increase beneath.
That is the true greenhouse effect
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Steven Mosher
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by PA
The atmosphere acts like a data buffer with most of the output data (thermal surface emission) leaving the system and some being returned for retransmission.
About 60% of the data (photons) from the surface bypass the buffer entirely.
Adding CO2 is a combination of directing more data into the buffer (absorption spreading) and lengthening the buffer (increasing the average number absorptions per photon/reducing the mean distance between absorptions) .
Adding CO2 increases the average time between a photon leaving surface and escaping into space. This also means there are more absorbed photons in the atmosphere at any one time (the atmosphere is hotter).
When a photon is emitted it travels at the speed of light. When a photon is absorbed it travels at the speed of air (a few meters a second or less). An absorption could possibly return a photon to the surface since the emission direction is assumed to be random.
For 60% of thermal emission from the surface, 2 ms after emission the photon is in space and gone permanently. CO2 makes some photons take the scenic route.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Tonyb
Max
Hmm.
Too much water is a problem
So by your logic , water is a problem
You need to keep things in context and qualify it. That example you gave is rather simplistic don’t you think?
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Max_OK
Pekka and/or tonyb are foolish?
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Pekka Pirilä
The importance of the line shape is large in calculations of Venus atmosphere as discussed here
http://www.sat.ltu.se/members/mendrok/publications/takagi10_influence_jgr.pdf
I did calculations for 10000 ppm in the Earth atmosphere finding that the effect significant at that concentration. It’s not clear, whether the paper you referred used a model that’s intended to be used at high concentrations. If not, then the results may be significantly wrong.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by David Appell (@davidappell)
Popes: clouds aren’t water in its vaporous state, and they don’t respond radiatively in the same way water vapor does.
Everyone admits clouds are a problem in models. But again, uncertainty cuts both ways.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by David Appell (@davidappell)
Kneel wrote:
“Although it apparently gives the windmill builders the right to litter the landscape with visual pollution, while actually making CO2 “pollution” worse and pocketing a nice subsidy from those who can least afford it.”
Huh? Visual pollution doesn’t affect the entire world, or far into the future, does it? And not everyone thinks they are visually unattractive. But, no, they aren’t perfect. No energy source is.
↧
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by David Appell (@davidappell)
David in TX wrote:
“CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s plant food.”
And human sewage is food for bacteria. Yet I doubt you want it in your water supply.
BTW, the Supreme Court ruled CO2 is a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act (Mass v EPA, 2007)
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by David Appell (@davidappell)
Mann et al’s work says nothing about AGW, since it is a reconstruction of pre-instrumental temperatures. It’s the instrumental temperatures that make up the blade, not anything Mann et al did.
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by kim
Alarmists. Who minds warmers, lukewarmers in mufti? They’re just a little further from understanding that warming is good, esp. any attributable to man, and greening is great.
=============
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
